Glass reuse in Bulgaria

Kameliya Krumova Environmental Management and Sustainability Science Master Thesis June 2016

Introduction This study has been carried out individually in at the 4th semester of the Master Program Environmental Management and Sustainability Science at Aalborg University. The study has been conducted in Bulgaria between February and May 2016.

The subject of this research was suggested by Margarita Georgieva, an ecology expert in Ecology department from Stara Zagora Municipality, Bulgaria. I have been on a three month internship at the Ecology department in Stara Zagora Municipality in the 3rd semester of this Master Program.

In the last decades increase in the world’s population results in higher need for food and therefore increase in generation of like and (Gómez, et al., 2009). The packaging material could have a significant impact on the environment (Meneses, et al., 2012) (Del Borghi, et al., 2014). Moreover the choice of packaging material could lead to impact on the whole beverage value chain (Simon, et al., 2016). could become a challenge in fast growing cities (Gómez, et al., 2009). Reuse of packaging should be considered before any other waste treatment, placed under ‘reuse’ in the waste hierarchy pyramid (Babader, et al., 2016) (WRAP, 2011). Although reuse is the easiest way to reduce waste, it has not been a common focus in studies (Babader, et al., 2016).

One of the packaging, , could be easily reused due to its qualities (Brewers Association, 2014) (INFORM, 2012) (FEVE, n.d.) A common way in Western Europe (Denmark, Sweden, Germany) to reuse packaging is through deposit system on beverage plastic, cans and glass bottles including water, beer, siders, non-alcoholic drinks ( Europe, 2010). That is not the in other countries such as Bulgaria. The current bottle deposit system in Bulgaria includes return of some glass beer bottles, which remains relatively low in comparison to the share of packaging – around 85% of the glass beer bottles are reusable and only 25% of the packaging is glass, where the leader is PET packaging with 60% share (Union of Brewers in Bulgaria, 2014). This research focuses on beer glass bottle packaging in Bulgaria. The general research question of this study is:

What is the role of the beer brewers for increase in reuse of glass beer bottles in Bulgaria?

Glass beer bottle reuse in Bulgaria

Abstract

A way to minimize the growing amount of waste is through reuse of packaging. Reuse of glass beer bottles is popular and widely used approach by brewers around the world. In Bulgaria, however, the reuse percentage of glass beer bottles is relatively low – less than 25%. This study aims to investigate the role of the beer brewers for increase of glass beer bottles’ reuse in Bulgaria. Different methods are used to collect relevant data. Ecological modernisation theory is used as a tool to discuss the findings of this study. When theory is compared to the current situation with the glass beer bottles, differences are revealed. In conclusion recommendation for increase in glass bottle reuse are given.

Keywords: reuse, glass beer bottle, ecological modernisation theory,

1. Introduction In the latest decades the high level of As indicated by the European Organization for anthropogenic activity has resulted in Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN), increased impact of our society to the packaging waste ‘has a direct impact on the environment. As consequences are depletion environment’ (EUROPEN, 2011). Among the of natural non-renewable resources and different waste handling processes reuse should be considered before any other waste increased generation of waste. (Kørnov, et al., treatment (Babader, et al., 2016). A widely 2007) Through the years different programs in used packaging material is the glass (Campbell, the US have been created with the aim to et al., 2016), which is commonly used in the improve the waste management and decrease industry in Europe, where more than the waste headed to landfills (Campbell, et al., half of the beer (51%) is sold in glass bottles 2016). (Berkhout, et al., 2013).

Likewise, The European Union presents In this article there are five main sections. common principles, definitions in the area of There is a brief methodology section and a waste management and aims for its Member theory text. This is followed by a description of States. With the inclusion of the waste the glass bottle reuse and analysis of the hierarchy (Figure 1.), where waste prevention findings. Finally, a discussion is followed by a is placed on top, there are clear rules for the conclusion and recommendations. different waste actions and tools for handling 1.1. Literature review the waste. (Eurpean Commision, 2008) The literature review presents number of studies which are about packaging in general. They present the environmental benefits of packaging and on the other hand the economic benefits of the packaging material. Different studies (Mata & Costa, 2001) (Ramos, et al., 2015) (Hekkert, 2004) indicate the number of advantages of returnable (reusable) packaging for the environment. The reuse of packaging could minimize the cost for and waste disposal (Dubiel, 1996). In spite of the fact that Figure 1. Waste hierarchy. Source: European for manufacturing a returnable product it Commission

1 would be thicker and cost more than the price 2012) (Zero Waste Europe, 2010). This is for non-returnable product, the returnable another way to enrich the waste management product would be used again and again, which practices and reuse some packages and recycle could lead to overall reduction of consumption others. In Bulgaria there is no common deposit of new manufacturing materials (Jurapan, et systems for bottles. The existing deposit al., 2003). For example, Mata and Costa (2001), system could be described as poor, where only using LCA method indicated that when the certain glass beer bottles are returned for reuse of returnable glass bottles is 50 % or reuse to breweries. There is not a specific more the impact on global warming, human legislation about reuse of glass bottles or the toxicity, energy and material consumption is deposit system. A research made by the smaller after they are reused in comparison to Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water non-returnable glass bottles (Mata & Costa, (2012) explores the possibilities of Bulgaria in 2001). Another study on LCA of glass beer establishing such deposit system for return of bottles shows a carbon footprint of 0,006 beverage packages, similar to the existing kgCO2e per glass bottle in Western Europe, deposit systems in the western countries. The which is lower in comparison to a can (0,122 results of the research indicate number of kgCO2e) and a PET bottle (0,152 kgCO2e) difficulties towards the deposit system (Owens-Illinois, 2010). introduction – initial investment, changes in the legislation and negative impact on small A study made by Babader et al (2016) in UK and medium businesses. The authors conclude investigates the reuse behaviour and how to their negative support in establishment of the improve it according to the variables: deposit systems in the coming years. (Ministry awareness, values and motivation. The results of Environment and Water, 2012) show that factors like knowledge, social norms, communication and availability of returnable As it was shown in the literature review there packaging could influence and increase the are different ways to look at the problem. The level of reuse among society. (Babader, et al., system of glass bottles packaging is complex 2016) and the research of this study will focus on brewery industry in Bulgaria. This study will A way to minimize the beverage packaging investigate what the beer brewers’ role is for impact on the environment is through increase in reuse of glass beer bottles in common use of same shape and colour glass Bulgaria. bottles. A research by Ko et all (2012) focuses on the possibility of standardization of glass bottles of two competing breweries and the 2. Methodology advantages of this process for both of them. In the present research different methods Results present different benefits, for example, have been used to acquire qualitative data: easier bottle collection for reuse, cost literature review, observations, interviews and reduction and decrease in the inventory informal discussions with representative from holding costs. (Ko, et al., 2012) Moreover, the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and higher reuse percentage of used glass bottles Water. could lead to other benefits such as reduction In the first part of the research a literature in the CO2 emissions (Hekkert, et al., 2000). review has been carried out to obtain data on Reuse and recycling of beverage packaging the existing state of the art about packaging (glass, cans and PET bottles) through deposit and reuse of glass beer bottles. The literature systems is a common practice in European review is used as point of departure for the countries like Germany, Sweden, Denmark and present study, which gives different Estonia (Ministry of Environment and Water, opportunities to look at the glass beer bottles.

2

Observations have been a useful method, modernisation theory (Zimmerman, et al., which gave a possibility to visualise the issues 1990) (Jänicke, 1993) (Huber, 1985) (Hajer, in the last stages of the glass bottle life cycle. 1995) (Mol, 1997) (Mol & Spaargaren, 2000) Three different supermarket chains were (Jänicke, 2008). In case of possible conflicts visited to see what the system with the glass between economy and environment the beer bottles is. government has the responsibility of making these two parts fit and work together (Murphy, In the second part of the research interviews 2000). with environmental managers in three breweries in Bulgaria have been conducted. It In this research ecological modernisation was in order to collect data on breweries’ theory will be used to discuss the current environmental performance, their position on situation of the returnable packaging and their glass bottle reuse and their opinion about the possible increase in Bulgaria. The discussion existing deposit system, which includes some will link the role of the state and non-state type glass beer bottles. A contact was made actors through reflection of the theory and with the three leading breweries in the country taking into account the empirical data (Zagorka AD, Kamenitza AD and Carlsberg collection. Bulgaria) and interviews with their According to ecological modernisation theory environmental managers were performed. the role of the state is important and through Due to different reasons, it resulted in one live creating different instruments (e.g. through interview, one phone interview and one legislation, market regulation) it could have written interview. influence on the market development. This During the research an unstructured interview could result in economic growth and with waste management expert from the environmental protection. Likewise, the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water businesses should search for innovative was performed. The aim of it was to approaches so they could improve on their understand the position of the Ministry environmental performances. (Murphy, 2000) towards the existing deposit system in The theory argues that the non-state actors Bulgaria. should have more engagement in adminis- trative and legislative processes (Mol, 2010). 3. Ecological modernisation theory 4. Background In the last decades, ecological modernisation 4.1. Glass qualities concept is used ‘to describe a technology- Glass is made from natural sustainable based and innovation-oriented approach to materials such as sand, soda ash, limestone environmental policy’ (Jänicke, 2008). and cullet. Glass is well known material and it Ecological modernisation should lead to is used by people since 2500 BCE (American development in the existing technology, where Chemical Society, 2014). Its stability, environmentally friendly solutions are chosen transparency and the quality to survive over and implemented to remove the end-of-pipe warm or cold temperature makes the glass solutions (Jänicke, 2008). In the basis of the material suitable for packaging industry. Glass ecological modernisation theory lies the is a 100% recyclable material and could be interaction between ‘the institutions of recycled endlessly without loss in quality, modern technology, (market) economy and which is unique compared to other types of the state intervention’ (Mol, 1997). Through packaging. In the concept of sustainable the years different authors have contributed to development this feature creates a closed the development of the ecological loop. Moreover qualities of the new recycled

3 material are as high as the original material. Glass is used for the production of colourless One option is the bottle to be returned at the and colour bottles and to be packaging for brewery and reused. Another option is the beer, wine, water or food. (Glass Packagng bottle to be returned at the brewery and then Institute, 2016) (Verallia, 2010-2016) (FEVE, send to be recycled due to damages or n.d.) Due to its qualities the glass is a material scratches. A third option is the bottles to be suitable to fit in the circular economy cycle send for recycling after use in separate waste (European Commission, 2016). collection (Dr. Albrecht, et al., 2011).

4.2. Glass beer bottle life cycle Reuse and recycle are different waste In addition to the above presented facts, glass treatment processes. Reuse of a glass beer beer bottles are chosen in this research to bottle for example is when the bottle is explore the possibilities in improving the collected and washed and then used in the existing deposit system of glass beer bottles in same shape and form for another refill. On the Bulgaria. In Bulgaria for 2013 60% of the sold other hand, recycling of a glass beer bottle is beer was in plastic PET bottles, 25% was in when the bottle is treated in such a way that it glass bottles, in cans – 10% and 5% for draft is melted and brand new bottle is manufac- beer (Union of Brewers in Bulgaria, 2014). tured, which could have different shape and Glass is not a leader as packaging material in form from the original glass beer bottle. Bulgaria but has an outstanding qualities, (Hekkert, 2004) which could lead to different benefits and sustainable development. When it comes to glass bottles the non- reusable (one way) packaging is accepted as Raw materials are extracted and delivered to most unfavourable packaging for the the manufacturer. Then glass beer bottles are environment (Cleary, 2013) (Huang & Ma, produced by a glass manufacturing companies. 2004). Refilling and sending the bottles again After production the glass bottles are sold to on the market (bottle reuse) is considered a different breweries. These breweries fill the sustainable way, which saves resources, bottles with beer and distribute them to energy and CO2 emissions in comparison to supermarkets. Afterwards, consumers buy and recycling or landfill disposal. Due to its qualities empty the glass beer bottles. (Glass Packaging glass has a closed loop cycle, where the glass Institute, 2010) There are different options for bottles could be reused or recycled (because of the glass bottles, where the most desirable and damages or not covering the quality require- sustainable option is to keep the bottles out of ments) (Glass Packaging Institute, 2010) the waste stream (Figure 2). (INFORM, 2012) (FEVE, n.d.)

Figure 2. Glass beer bottle life cycle.

4

The reuse could prolong the glass bottle and reaching 50% reuse and recycling of , lifetime and later the glass bottle could be cardboard, plastic, metal and glass (Ministry of recycled, where it would be used for the Environment and Water, 2012). manufacturing of a new glass bottle (European Commission, 2015) (FEVE, n.d.). The reuse of 4.4. Background in Bulgaria glass bottles could have ecological, economic A deposit system for return of beverage and social advantages (Dr. Albrecht, et al., packages, like PET or glass bottles, is not 2011). present in Bulgaria. Due to the existing legislation in Bulgaria there are present Sources from US and Europe show different systems for volunteer return of the beverage information about the amount of reuse of the packaging to the producer. They are mainly glass bottles. A glass bottle could be refilled focused on the refillable glass beer bottles, around 15 times (INFORM, 2012)and Other where the glass beer bottles are return to the sources state that a glass bottle could be brewery for another refill. These volunteer refilled 20 to 30 times (O-I, n.d.). According to systems are created within the industry sector Breweries of Europe 24,5% of the beer sold is and they are not covered by specific in refillable glass in Europe. (Donoghue, et al., legislation. (Munistry of Environment and 2012) (Teotonio, 2013). Water, 2012) Figure 3 shows the change in the packaging material and the ‘switch’ from 4.3. Legislation in Bulgaria mainly glass bottle packaging to PET bottles This section contains brief information between 2006 and 2010. relevant to reuse of glass beer bottles. The existing legislation connected to the reuse of

packaging is the Ordinance on packages and Figure 3. Beer produced (hectolitres) and beer waste from packages (Ministry of Environment packaging in Bulgaria (Union of Brewers in Bulgaria, and Water, 2012). The Ordinance states 2010). Personal translation of the figure, the ‘people, who release on the market packed original is in Bulgarian language. goods, can organise individually or together According to data from the Union of Brewers in with other producers and distributors deposit Bulgaria (Figure 4.) the packaging share of PET or other systems for reuse of packaging’ bottles is the highest with 60%, followed by the (Ministry of Environment and Water, 2012). It glass packaging with 25% in 2013. The data is called extended producer responsibility could be accepted as reflection of the people’s (Ministry of Environment and Water, 2012). affordability, behaviour and attitude towards There is as well a National Waste Management the beer itself and the packaging. (Krainova, Plan from 2014-2020, a strategy document, 2014) Both Figure 3 and 4 clearly show the which contains targets to be reached before drastic change in the packaging material and 2020 (Ministry of Environment and Water, the consumer change from glass bottle to PET 2014). Some of these targets are decrease of bottle. Breweries are driven depending on the the landfilled biodegradable waste with 35%

5 market share of certain packaging (Dimchev, the brewery takes as an aim the targets which 2016). are stricter when the company policy and the legal legislation are compared (Karailieva, Packaging share in 2013 2016). The breweries continuously work on improving their environmental performance e.g. have different ISO certifications and for 5% 10% Zagorka AD the current focus is on ‘building a waste water treatment plant’ (Dimchev, 2016) 25% at the brewery in Stara Zagora. 60% The three breweries have a high percentage of reusable glass bottles in comparison to disposable glass bottles – 85% for Zagorka, PET Glass Cans 88% for Carlsberg and 90% for Kamenitza

(Dimchev, 2016) (Borisov, 2016) (Peteva, Figure 4. Packaging share based on data from Union 2016). Even though these percentages are high of Brewers in Bulgaria (Krainova, 2014) they remain relatively low in comparison to the total share of glass bottles in the pool of 5. Analysis of the interviews different packaging (see Figure 4). However, a Apart from the literature review and the glass bottle is reused around 20 times extensive document research to be able to (Dimchev, 2016). answer completely the research question, When asked whether they have campaigns to there were prepared and conducted influence the consumer decision on which interviews with environmental managers from packaging to choose, the interviewees leading breweries in Bulgaria. Two of the answered different. Two of them said that they breweries – Zagorka AD and Kamenitza AD are do not have such campaigns (Borisov, 2016) local brands of international and well-known (Karailieva, 2016) and the third interviewee companies: Heineken and Molson Coors mentioned they use commercials and ‘mainly (Zagorka, 2013) (Kamenitza, 2015). The third this year commercials are focused on glass brewery is Carlsberg Bulgaria, which is part of bottles’ (Dimchev, 2016). The environmental Carlsberg Group (Carlsberg Bulgaria, n.d.). manager from Kamenitza AD claimed that ‘the Each of the international breweries has market strategy is the one to be followed’ and environmental policy with specific goals to ‘social status is taken into account’ (Karailieva, their environmental footprint (Carlsberg 2016). Group, 2016) (Heineken, 2016) (Molson Coors, 2016). Then the interviewed persons were asked to share their opinion on the existing deposit The main purpose of the interviews was to system, which includes only some beer bottle discuss the returnable glass bottles with types. Here the representative from Carlsberg people, who have that knowledge and who summarised that ‘the deposit is good way of work in breweries with clear aims towards the stimulation and it is working’ (Borisov, 2016). environment in their environmental policy. In One of the interviewee stated that ‘there is a the beginning of each interview the logic for working into direction where there is a environmental managers were asked to deposit system for all types’ bottles‘(Karailieva, describe the brewery’s environmental policy. 2016). In addition was the interviewee’s Each of the breweries stated that they follow reason ‘that will contribute to higher the state legislation and the environmental engagement for consumers’ (Karailieva, 2016). policy set by the ‘mother’ company. The manager from Kamenitza AD commented that

6

In the end, the interviewees were asked to order to have better overview of the different point what should be changed so the deposit actors’ position, an informal discussion took system becomes similar to the one in the place with environmental expert from the western countries, where different packaging Ministry of Environment and Water. According (glass, PET, cans) is returned. The environ- to the expert the existing legislation ‘gives mental managers stated different factors, possibility’ for the producers to choose which which could be seen as a driving force to do type of packaging to be non-returnable and that change and there could be a cooperation which to be returned by the consumers between the stakeholders. These driving (Peneva, 2016). Different reasons, were forces could be divided in three groups: social, presented to support the current position of economic and legislative (Borisov, 2016) the state, not to change the existing system to (Karailieva, 2016) (Dimchev, 2016): a new one with return of all types of bottle packaging. Among the reasons were: the good  social: family environment in early performance of the existing waste childhood, the schools, change in the management system; the geographical way of thinking, industry groups, position and the high percentage of people nongovernmental organisations; living in small cities or villages; the financial  economic: the different distributors investment in introducing a new system and supermarkets should also be (Peneva, 2016). These reasons summarize the involved; conclusions of a study conducted on behalf of the Ministry in 2011 (Ministry of Environment  legislative: change in the legislation and Water, 2012). with higher taxes on non-returnable bottle packaging, involvement of the 6. Discussion regional environmental agencies and Looking at ecological modernisation theory the Ministry of Environment and with a normative approach and comparing it to Water; the current situation of glass beer bottle, there The Social factor is accepted as important, could be found a contrast. Firstly, the Bulgarian because ‘children fast understand and fast legislation gives the responsibility to breweries remember’ (Dimchev, 2016). Economic factor (extensive producer responsibility) to decide is needed, because it includes different how to handle their packaging waste and the businesses and the producers could have a key reuse of packaging (Ministry of Environment role. The legislation was seen as another and Water, 2012). Then the main strategy driving force, because ‘it is the only factor document (National Plan 2014-2020) does not everybody have to be in line with’ (Borisov, contain specific aims towards increase of glass 2016) and in that way the state could be bottle reuse (Ministry of Environment and accepted as a leader. Water, 2014). However, achieving a certain level of environmental performance through The analysis of the conducted interviews gives implementation of sustainable practices is a better understanding of the current based on the ‘mother’ company’s influence environmental performance of leading and the environmental strategy followed by breweries in Bulgaria. Different factors were the brewery. Another sign of existing ‘non revealed by the interviewees, which could be harsh’ legislation is the fact that one of the beneficial and useful if the current system is to breweries takes into account the stricter aim be improved and changed. when compared the state legislation and the The conducted interviews present the environmental policy of the mother company. breweries position on returnable packaging. In Implementing the theory should weaken the

7 state authority and emerge in decentralisation implement some aspects of the ecological and flexibility (Mol & Sonnenfeld, 2000) modernisation theory. (Jänicke, 1993). The theory gives more responsibilities to the According to the ecological modernisation non-state actors, which relate to involvement theory the role of the state is vital and should in regulative and administrative functions (Mol appear in different levels (Mol, 1997) (Jänicke, & Sonnenfeld, 2000) (Mol, 2010). The role of 2008) (Bailey, et al., 2010). There are different non-state actors is defined as important as the options for the state to increase glass bottle role of state actors. The breweries, as a non- reuse. In his work Winsemius (1986) as cited by state actor, should be included in the Smink (2002, pp. 69-70) shares that by using reshaping of the deposit system. The goal of economic instruments which interfere with the improving the current deposit system should market (influence the price tag), the state be a common goal involving the different state could make a change in the existing glass and non-state actors (Mol, 1997).The reuse. For example, an option could be the interviewees, representing state and non-state state to use the deposit refund system as an actors, revealed some other factors – social economic instrument ‘to shape behaviour and economic, which influence improvement through price signals’ (Hockenstein, et al., of the existing deposit system. 1997). A different economic instrument could This chapter addresses differences between be, for example, to set high tax for non- ecological modernisation theory and the role returnable glass bottles. However the state of the state and non-state actors in Bulgaria. It does not use any of these instruments. Despite could be concluded that the theory does not fit these possibilities the current position of the completely the situation in the country. state could not be described as ‘leading’. The Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water still supports the conclusions of a research in 7. Conclusion and 2011 on possibilities to present deposit system recommendations for all bottle types, where it is not suggested The presented research has been conducted in the introduction of such a system (Ministry of Bulgaria. The research question of this study Environment and Water, 2012). In a contrast is was: What is the role of the beer brewers to the opinion supported by the interviewed increase the reuse of glass beer bottles in environmental managers who are positive on Bulgaria? In order to answer this research existing deposit system and in their opinion it question the study takes a point of departure should not be a burden to expand the system, with document research and literature review. so more bottle types (glass and others) are The empirical data collection is done through returned. semi structured interviews with three The state could also play a central role not only environmental managers from leading by using economic instruments. The state breweries in the country. In addition, an could influence by changing the existing unstructured interview was conducted with legislation. Exemplifying, if the legislation has expert from the Ministry of Environment and specific targets for reuse to be reached, that Water, which presents the state position on could trigger the producers to include all types the existing deposit system. Ecological of glass bottles to be returned and reused. modernisation theory was used to discuss the Then the producers could easily shift to findings of the interviews. According to the returnable glass bottles in order to save ecological modernisation theory the role of the finances. By these instruments there would be state is important (Mol & Spaargaren, 1993) lighter change in the regulation, which could and the interviewees could see the state as the initiator for improvement. Using the theory’s

8 normative approach the state could influence glass bottles or deposit systems for different the market by the means of economic bottle packaging. The social factors should be instruments such as taxes or deposit system taken into consideration as well. for all bottles (Hockenstein, et al., 1997). The It is recommended to the brewers to take the role of the non-state actors is important, example of their ‘mother’ companies and place because they should have more legislative and more reusable glass bottle types on the administrative power (Mol & Sonnenfeld, market. Following that experience could lead 2000) (Mol, 2010). However, it was found that to improvement of the current situation on the role of the state and non-state actors glass bottles. Another recommendation could within the brewery industry in Bulgaria does be to demand for support and cooperation not correspond ecological modernisation from the state in introducing deposit system theory. Number of factors were revealed, for the different bottle packaging. which could lead to change in the reuse. These factors could be arranged in three categories: social, economic and legislative. Among the Acknowledgements factors were: family environment in early I would like to thank to my supervisor Carla childhood; role of the schools; involvement of Smink for her input, advice and guidance the distributors and supermarkets; change in through this research. the legislation and involvement of the regional environmental agencies (Borisov, 2016) References (Dimchev, 2016) (Karailieva, 2016). Changing American Chemical Society, 2014. Man and the system to one where all bottles (glass, PET Matherials through History, s.l.: American and cans) are returned was commented Chemical Society. positively by the environmental managers. On the other hand the expert from the Ministry of Babader, A., Ren, J., O. Jones, K. & Wang, J., Environment and Water stated the negative 2016. A system dynamics approach for position of the state where different enhancing social behaviors regarding the arguments were noted: the good performance reuse of packaging. Expert Systems With of the existing waste management system; the Applications, Volume 46, pp. 417-425. financial investment in introducing a new Bailey, I., Gouldson, A. & Newell, P., 2010. system (Peneva, 2016). Ecological modernisation and the governance Considering the findings of this study, several of carbon: a critical anylysis, Leeds: University actions could be recommended to the state as of East Anglia UK and CCCEP. well as to the brewers. Berkhout, B. et al., 2013. The Contribution The position of the Ministry of Environment madeby Beer tothe European Economy. EU and Water in supporting the results from a report, Amsterdam: s.n. study on their behalf from five years ago Borisov, B., 2016. [Interview] (5 May 2016). (Ministry of Environment and Water, 2012) could not be accepted as reliable. It is Brewers Association, 2014. Solid Waste suggested to the state to have clear targets on Reduction Manual. [Online] reuse of beer glass bottles written in the Available at: legislation. By this the brewers could make https://www.brewersassociation.org/educati changes to reach these targets. Another onal-publications/solid-waste-sustainability- recommendation for the state is to use manual/ different economic instruments, which could [Accessed 23 May 2016]. lead to improvement of the existing deposit system such as higher taxes on non-returnable

9

Campbell, B. et al., 2016. Crunch the can or Eurpean Commision, 2008. Directive throw the bottle? Effect of 'bottle deposit 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and laws' and municipal recyling programs. of the Council on waste and repealing certain Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Directives. Official Journal of the European Volume 106, pp. 98-109. Union, pp. 3-30.

Carlsberg Bulgaria, n.d. Company: Shortly FEVE, n.d. FEVE The European Glass about company. [Online] Federation: Why choose glass?. [Online] Available at: Available at: http://www.carlsbergbulgaria.bg/Company/S http://feve.org/index.php?option=com_conte hortlyaboutcompany/Pages/default.aspx nt&view=article&id=1&Itemid=2 [Accessed 20 May 2016]. [Accessed 6 April 2016].

Carlsberg Group, 2016. Sustainability Report Glass Packaging Institute, 2010. 2015, Copenhagen V: Carlsberg Group. Environmental Overview: Complete Life Cycle Assessment of North American Del Borghi, A., Gallo, M., Strazza, C. & Del Glass. [Online] Borghi, M., 2014. An evaluation of Available at: environmental sustainability in the food http://www.gpi.org/sites/default/files/N- industry through Life Cycle Assessment: the American_Glass_Container_LCA.pdf case study of tomato products supply chain. [Accessed 14 March 2016]. Journalof Cleaner Production, Volume 78, pp. 121-130. Glass Packagng Institute, 2016. Learn About Glass: What is Glass: Glass Composition. Dimchev, K., 2016. [Interview] (4 May 2016). [Online] Donoghue, C., Jackson, G., Koop, J. H. & Available at: http://www.gpi.org/learn-about- Heuven, A. J. M., 2012. Environmental glass/what-glass/glass-composition Performance of the European Sector , [Accessed 7 March 2016]. Brussels: Breweries of Europe. Gómez, G., Meneses, M., Ballinas, L. & Dr. Albrecht, P., Brodersen, J., Horst, D. W. & Castells, F., 2009. Seasonal characterization of Scherf, M., 2011. Reuse and Recycling Systems municipal solid waste (MSW) in the city of for Selected Beverage Packaging from a Chihuahua, Mexico. Waste Mangement, Sustainability Perspective , s.l.: PwC. Volume 29, pp. 2018-2024.

Dubiel, M., 1996. Costing structures of Hajer, M. A., 1995. The Politisc of systems. Packaging Environmental Discourse: Ecological Technology and Science, 9(5), pp. 237-254. Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press. European Commission, 2016. Environment: Circular Economy. [Online] Heineken, 2016. Sustainability Report 2015. Available at: Brewing a Better World, Amsterdam: A http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular- Heineken N.V. Publication. economy/index_en.htm Hekkert, M. P., 2004. Reuse and Energy. [Accessed 20 May 2016]. Encyclopedia of Energy, Volume 5, pp. 461- EUROPEN, 2011. Packaging and Sustainability. 468. An open dialogue between stakeholders., Hekkert, M. P., Joosten, L. A. J. & Worrell, E., Brussels: s.n. 2000. Reduction of CO2 emissions by improved managment of material and

10 product use: the case of primary packaging. Ko, Y. D., Noh, I. & Hvang, H., 2012. Cost Resources, Conservation and Recycling, benefits from Standartization of the packaging Volume 29, pp. 33-64. glass bottles. Computers and Industrial Engineering, Volume 62, pp. 693-702. Hockenstein, J. B., Stavins, R. N. & Whitehead, B. W., 1997. Crafting the Next Generation of Krainova, M., 2014. Press release. Съобщение Market-Based Environmental Tools. за медиите. [Online] Environment: Science and Policy for Available at: Sustainable Development, 39(4), pp. 12-33. http://www.pivovari.com/novini/225- saobshtenie-za-mediite Huber, J., 1985. Die Regenbogengesellschaft. [Accessed 12 May 2016]. Ökologie und Sozialpolitik., Frankfurt am Main: Fisher Verlag. Mata, T. M. & Costa, C. A. V., 2001. Life Cycle Assessment of Different Reuse Percentages INFORM, 2012. Case Reopened: Reassessing for Glass Beer Bottles. international Journal Refilable Bottles (Executive Summary). LCA, 6(5), pp. 307-319. [Online] Available at: Meneses, M., Pasqualino, J. & Castells, F., http://www.informinc.org/pages/research/wa 2012. Environmental assessment of the milk ste-prevention/fact-sheets/case-reopened- life cycle: The effect of packaging selection reassessing-refillable-bottles-executive- and the variability of milk production data. summary.html Journal of Environmental Management, [Accessed 8 March 2016]. Volume 107, pp. 76-83.

Jänicke, M., 1993. Über ökologische und Ministry of Environment and Water, 2012. politische Modernisierungen.. Zeitschrift für Ordinance on packages and waste from Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht, Volume 2, pp. packages. Наредба за опаковките и 159-175. отпадъците от опаковки. [Online] Available at: Jänicke, M., 2008. Ecological Modernisation: http://www.moew.government.bg/files/file/ new perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Waste/Legislation/Naredbi/waste/NAREDBA_ Production, Volume 16, pp. 557-565. za_opakovkite.pdf Jurapan, L., Kamarthi, S. V. & Gupta, S. M., [Accessed 12 November 2015]. 2003. Evaluation of trade-offs in costs and Ministry of Environment and Water, 2012. environmental impacts for returnable Research of the Possibility of Creating Deposit packaging implementation. Boston, s.n. Systems and Systems for Return of Some Kamenitza, 2015. About Us: Kamenitza's Types of Packaging and Waste from history. [Online] Packaging in Republic of Bulgaria, Sofia: s.n. Available at: Ministry of Environment and Water, 2014. http://kamenitzacompany.bg/en/about- National Waste Mangament Plan 2014-2020. us/kamenitza-history/ [Online] [Accessed 20 May 2016]. Available at: Karailieva, R., 2016. [Interview] (4 May 2016). http://www.moew.government.bg/files/file/ Waste/NACIONALEN_PLAN/NPUO_ENG_22_1 Kørnov, L., Thrane, M., Remmen, A. & Lund, 0_2014_06_01_2015.pdf H., 2007. Tools for Sustainable Development. [Accessed 2 November 2015]. Aalborg : Aalborg Universitetsforlag. Mol, A. P., 1997. Ecological modernization: industrial transformation and environmental

11 reform . In: The international Handbook of Packaging Systems: A Review. Beverages, Environmental Sociaology. s.l.:s.n., pp. 138- Volume 1, pp. 248-272. 149. Simon, B., Ben Amor, M. & Földènyi, R., 2016. Mol, A. P. J., 2010. Social Theories of Life cycle impact assessment of beverage Environmental Reform: Towards a Third packaging systems: focus on. Journal of Generation. In: M. H. H. Groß, ed. Cleaner Production, Volume 112, pp. 238-248. Environmental Sociology. s.l.:Springer, pp. 19- Smink, C.,2002. Modernisation of 38. Environmental Regulations: End-of-life Vehicle Mol, A. P. J. & Sonnenfeld, D. A., 2000. regulations in the Nederlands and Denmark, Ecological Modernization Around the World: Aalborg University, pp. 69-70 An Introduction. Environmental Politics, 9(1), Teotonio, I., 2013. Life: Food & Wine. [Online] pp. 3-16. Available at: Mol, A. P. J. & Spaargaren, G., 1993. http://www.thestar.com/life/food_wine/2013 Environment, Modernity and The Risk Society: /06/28/the_average_beer_bottle_is_refilled_ The Apocalyptic Horizon of Environmental 15_times_in_its_environmentallyfriendly_life Reform. International Sociology, 8(4), pp. 431- _cycle.html 459. [Accessed 2016 March 2016].

Mol, A. P. J. & Spaargaren, G., 2000. Ecological Union of Brewers in Bulgaria, 2010. Facts and Modernisation Theory in Debate: a Review. Numbers. Факти и цифри. [Online] Environmental Politics, 9(1), pp. 17- 49. Available at: http://www.pivovari.com/fakti-i- tzifri Molson Coors, 2016. Our Beer Print 2015. [Accessed 12 May 2016]. Corporate Responsibility Report, Denver: Molson . Union of Brewers in Bulgaria, 2014. Union of Brewers in Bulgaria: Press release. [Online] Munistry of Environment and Water, 2012. Available at: Research of the Possibility of Creating Deposit http://www.pivovari.com/novini/225- Systems and Systems for Return of Some saobshtenie-za-mediite Types of Packaging and Waste from [Accessed 6 April 2016]. Packaging in Republic of Bulgaria, Sofia: s.n. Verallia, 2010-2016. About Glass: Qualities. Murphy, J., 2000. Ecological modernisation. [Online] Geoforum, Volume 31, pp. 1-8. Available at: O-I, n.d. Sustainability: Refillables. [Online] http://www.verallia.com/en/about-glass Available at: http://www.o- [Accessed 7 March 2016]. i.com/Sustainability/Refillables/ WRAP, 2011. Applying the waste hierarchy: A [Accessed 14 March 2016]. guide to business, Banbury: s.n. Owens-Illinois, 2010. The Complete Life Cycle Zagorka, 2013. About us: Zagorka's history. Assessment , s.l.: s.n. [Online] Peneva, P., 2016. [Interview] (28 April 2016). Available at: http://zagorkacompany.bg/bg/page/18/istori Peteva, R., 2016. [Interview] (31 May 2016). ya-na-zagorka Ramos, M., Valdés, A., Mellinas, A. K. & [Accessed 20 May 2016]. Garrigós, M. C., 2015. New Trends in Beverage Zero Waste Europe, 2010. Beverage Packaging and Zero Waste. [Online]

12

Available at: http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2010/09/be verage-packaging-and-zero-waste/ [Accessed 29 March 2016].

Zero Waste Europe, 2010. Closing the Loop of Materials, Phasing Out Toxics & Emissions. [Online] Available at: https://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/tag/germa ny-deposit-refund-system/ [Accessed 23 May 2016].

Zimmerman, K., Hartje, V. & Ryll, A., 1990. Ökologische Modernisierung der Produktion. Strukturen und Trends. Berlin: Sigma.

13

Addendum 1. Methodology 1.1. Interviews In the second part of the research semi structured interviews were conducted in order to be able fully to answer the research question. This method gave more thorough understanding of the researched topic (Silverman, 2005). Doing interviews gave an opportunity to see the researched topic from different point of view. Environmental managers from leading breweries were selected, because they could have the knowledge and experience to answer the author’s questions and they were suitable. Table 1. shows more information about each interviewee. In earlier stage of the research there was an unofficial meeting with one of the environmental managers. The interviews were with different length - the live interview took 15 min and the phone interview took 25 min. The interview with expert from Waste Management Department from the Ministry of Environment and Water was unstructured and explorative. It took about 15 min.

Table 1. Interviewees’ table.

Name of Company Email address Phone Date Interview environmenta type l manager Kolio Dimchev Zagorka AD [email protected] 00359 898 776 759 04/05/2016 live Radka Kamenitza radka.karailieva@molsoncoors 00359 898 774 177 04/05/2016 phone Karailieva AD .com Borislav Carlsberg [email protected] 05/05/2016 written Borisov Bulgaria Petya Peneva Ministry of [email protected] 00359 2 940 66 32 28/04/2016 phone Environment .bg and Water

1

2. Questions to environmental managers (live and phone interview) 1. What is your company’s environmental policy? Should it comply with the environmental policy of your ‘mother’ company? 2. How will you evaluate the policy? 3. How your company looks at the reuse of glass beer bottles? - How many times do you reuse a glass bottle? - What is the share of non-returnable/returnable glass bottles in your company? 4. Do you have a policy/strategy to increase reuse of glass bottles? 5. Do you have campaigns to influence the consumers? 6. What do you do to influence consumer behaviour? 7. What do you think about the existing deposit system in Bulgaria, which is only on some glass beer bottles? 8. What should be changed so it expands and for example becomes a system where you return all the bottles? = like in Germany, Denmark, Sweden. Who should be responsible for this change?

3. Questions to environmental managers (written interview). 1. What is your company’s environmental policy? Please, briefly explain it. 2. How your company looks at the reuse of glass beer bottles? 3. How many times do you reuse a glass bottle? 4. What is the share of non-returnable/returnable glass bottles in your company? 5. Do you have campaigns to influence the consumers, whether to choose a glass bottle of beer or a PET bottle of beer? - Quality of the beer - Social status - Price/amount ratio - Environmental friendly packaging - Other (please note it) ………………… 6. What do you do to influence consumer behaviour? 7. What should be changed so it expands and for example becomes a system where you return all the bottles? Who should be responsible for this change? - The law - The consumers’ - The economy in Bulgaria - Other (please note it) ………………..

References Silverman, D., 2005. Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publication.

2